Letting Gays have civil unions will not interfere with the downward spiral of the institution of marriage --- then let'em live in the same shithole
On Jan 11, 9:41 am, VT Sean Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: > The state of the institution of marriage is in the shitter already. > > Letting Gays have civil unions will not interfere with the downward > spiral of the institution of marriage. > > On Jan 11, 6:58 am, Bruce Majors <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I am waiting for my ring > > > A) Conservative Case for Gay Marriagehttp://www.newsweek.com/id/229957 > > Why same-sex marriage is an American value. > > By Theodore B. Olson | NEWSWEEK - From the magazine issue dated Jan 18, 2010 > > > Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, > > I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's > > Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California's > > constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex. > > My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation > > among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a > > veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge > > the "traditional" definition of marriage and press for an "activist" > > interpretation of the Constitution to create another "new" constitutional > > right? > > My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to > > persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic > > characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially > > appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its > > protection of equality and fundamental rights. > > Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward > > gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the > > values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of > > our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between > > two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and > > economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments > > they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to > > their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own > > needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared > > aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the > > well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want > > to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative > > ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, > > rather than lament it. > > Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American > > principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment > > to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights > > milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the > > goals we set for this nation at its formation. > > This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and > > legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives > > alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept > > expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the > > most noble and elegant ever written: "We hold these truths to be > > self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their > > Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty > > and the pursuit of Happiness." > > Sadly, our nation has taken a long time to live up to the promise of > > equality. In 1857, the Supreme Court held that an African-American could not > > be a citizen. During the ensuing Civil War, Abraham Lincoln eloquently > > reminded the nation of its found-ing principle: "our fathers brought forth > > on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the > > proposition that all men are created equal." > > At the end of the Civil War, to make the elusive promise of equality a > > reality, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution added the command that "no > > State É shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due > > process of law; nor deny to any person É the equal protection of the laws." > > Subsequent laws and court decisions have made clear that equality under the > > law extends to persons of all races, religions, and places of origin. What > > better way to make this national aspiration complete than to apply the same > > protection to men and women who differ from others only on the basis of > > their sexual orientation? I cannot think of a single reason—and have not > > heard one since I undertook this venture—for continued discrimination > > against decent, hardworking members of our society on that basis. > > Various federal and state laws have accorded certain rights and privileges > > to gay and lesbian couples, but these protections vary dramatically at the > > state level, and nearly universally deny true equality to gays and lesbians > > who wish to marry. The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as > > equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and > > unconstitutional. > > The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of > > the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our > > Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social > > partnership, to live and share life's joys and burdens with the person we > > love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court > > has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution's protections of > > liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In > > short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a > > community. Without it, there can be no true equality under the law. > > It is true that marriage in this nation traditionally has been regarded as a > > relationship exclusively between a man and a woman, and many of our nation's > > multiple religions define marriage in precisely those terms. But while the > > Supreme Court has always previously considered marriage in that context, the > > underlying rights and liberties that marriage embodies are not in any way > > confined to heterosexuals. > > Marriage is a civil bond in this country as well as, in some (but hardly > > all) cases, a religious sacrament. It is a relationship recognized by > > governments as providing a privileged and respected status, entitled to the > > state's support and benefits. The California Supreme Court described > > marriage as a "union unreservedly approved and favored by the community." > > Where the state has accorded official sanction to a relationship and > > provided special benefits to those who enter into that relationship, our > > courts have insisted that withholding that status requires powerful > > justifications and may not be arbitrarily denied. > > What, then, are the justifications for California's decision in Proposition > > 8 to withdraw access to the institution of marriage for some of its citizens > > on the basis of their sexual orientation? The reasons I have heard are not > > very persuasive. > > The explanation mentioned most often is tradition. But simply because > > something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must > > always remain that way. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools and > > debtors' prisons. Gays and lesbians have always been among us, forming a > > part of our society, and they have lived as couples in our neighborhoods and > > communities. For a long time, they have experienced discrimination and even > > persecution; but we, as a society, are starting to become more tolerant, > > accepting, and understanding. California and many other states have allowed > > gays and lesbians to form domestic partnerships (or civil unions) with most > > of the rights of married heterosexuals. Thus, gay and lesbian individuals > > are now permitted to live together in state-sanctioned relationships. It > > therefore seems anomalous to cite "tradition" as a justification for > > withholding the status of marriage and thus to continue to label those > > relationships as less worthy, less sanctioned, or less legitimate. > > The second argument I often hear is that traditional marriage furthers the > > state's interest in procreation—and that opening marriage to same-sex > > couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue this goal. But that is plainly > > not the case. Preventing lesbians and gays from marrying does not cause more > > heterosexuals to marry and conceive more children. Likewise, allowing gays > > and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage > > heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How, then, would > > allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of children that heterosexual > > couples conceive? > > This procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. We do not inquire > > whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity > > to have children, before we allow them to marry. We permit marriage by the > > elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having > > children. What's more, it is pernicious to think marriage should be limited > > to heterosexuals because of the state's desire to promote procreation. We > > would surely not accept as constitutional a ban on marriage if a state were > > to decide, as China has done, to discourage procreation. > > Another argument, vaguer and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage > > somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who > > can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sex > > partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples? Tellingly, > > when the judge in our case asked our opponent to identify the ways in which > > same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, to his credit he > > answered honestly: he could not think of any. > > The simple fact is that there is no good reason why we should deny marriage > > to same-sex partners. On the other hand, there are many reasons why we > > should formally recognize these > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
